Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report

For CDRU # 5403 Case file # 95-HQ-1052305 .

Material Examiner:

Malone (HO')

Remarks:

Case resulted in trial, transcript not provided.

INDErENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fibers

Review commenced at: 2:45 PM

File #: 95A-HQ- 1052305

Laboratory #(s): 306090 15

30614009

(Time),

11 / 07/01

(Date)

Examinees) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

Xa

□

□

□

YD

□

XD

o

□

□

□

□

□

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcripts) of: not provided

Testimony Date(s): Pages:

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number. 306090 1 5, 30614009

*

Laboratory Number:

Laboratory Number:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician

Laboratory Number: 306090 1 5

30614009

Date: Dec 14, 1993

Date:

Date:

Page

Initials:

„ Was any other material reviewed? XQ Yes □ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letters dated 6-6-93 and 6-8-93

Results of Review

File#: 95 A-HQ- 1052305 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q6, Q8-Q13, K3, K4, K6, K7

1 ) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)?

□ Yes □ No X □ Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? □ Yes X □ No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Xn Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory reports)?

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?

Page 2 of 3

□ Yes

□ No

□

□ Yes

□ No

□

□ Yes

□ No

a

Unable to Determine
Unable to Determine
Unable to Determine

Initials:

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95 A-HQ-1 052305

#1 : With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted
appropriate manner.

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil instead of ink. Abbreviations are
used that are not readily interpreted. Some of die hairs recovered from Q items are marked as "NSFC".
Presumably, this means "Not Suitable for Comparison", but there is no documentation as to what makes these
hairs unsuitable.

02 : Apparently, confirmation of the hair match was made by a second qualified (?) hair examiner.

Review completed at: 3:15 PM (Time), 11/07/01 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.50 hr

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review

1 1/07/2001
(Date)

Page 3 of 3

Initials: